5 ms·

Open Letter to Leo Burnett UK

64 points by kristianc 14y ago

dansingerman 14y ago
Leo Burnett response here http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ TL;DR - Original concept and script were supposedly Leo Burnett's.
- modoc 14y ago
  However the Asylum Films complaint isn't around the concept or script being copied/stolen. They complain that the company that re-shot the higher budget version essentially copied/stole much of their creative work: lighting, shots, etc...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - davedx 14y ago
    But surely when you do work for a client, they own the IP, not you? If I was a logo designer and designed a logo for BigCorp, then they wanted to revise it a year later to something similar but different, would I be justified in complaining they 'stole and copied my creative work'?
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      They own the finished product, but honestly it's really frowned upon to a do a bigger budget version and lift lighting and shooting setups (or at least in photography, I'd imagine videography runs on the same rails).
    - evoxed 14y ago
      It's all supposed to be in the contract. If it's not, then the most likely court scenario is that the IP is owned by the client, creator would have rights to display it, but their work would be considered a service.
    - regularfry 14y ago
      That depends entirely on the specific contract and the jurisdiction. There's no automatic assumption of copyright transfer in the UK, what you have is an implied license to use (normally). It's quite possible you would be justified, although I'd take issue with the word "stole".
- barrkel 14y ago
  That may be the case, but I'd put "concept + script" in the same bucket as "high-level spec" - in other words, not really believable when the end results look like direct clones. If Leo Burnett had said they did storyboards, set design etc., it would be more convincing.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
andyjohnson0 14y ago
This seems wrong to me, and I hope it gets resolved. But why is this on HN and near the top of the main page? Definitely off topic.
- phaylon 14y ago
  Because it interests people, so they vote it up?
- eevilspock 14y ago
  Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    Thanks for correcting me. I wrongly thought that flagging was for genuine spam.
- kristianc 14y ago
  On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - andyjohnson0 14y ago
    I'm aware of that guideline. How does a minor dispute between two companies gratify one's intellectual curiosity?
    - nicholassmith 14y ago
      Well we get a lot of posts about copyright, client work and so on so it does seem to fit.
colmvp 14y ago
Having read both sides of the story, I don't understand why Asylum is butthurt about this. They got paid by Leo Burnett to do a scene which both parties collaborated. However, as part of the contract and as the client to Asylum, Leo Burnett probably owns the creative so they are free to do whatever they want afterwards. It's not unlike a startup asking a designer to visually revamp their entire site: the designer may have come up with the creative but the client technically owns it. Afterwards, Leo Burnett's client (McDonalds) decided that they liked it so much they wanted a reshoot with higher production quality, so LB opted to reshoot it with a more expensive production company.
- rjknight 14y ago
  I think it's because Asylum were told (or assumed) that the prestige of the client would be available to them once the work has been released. Asylum would be able to take credit for the work by featuring it in their portfolio. Now they're just the guys who shot the "prototype" rather than the real thing. In creative work it's common for the commissioner to invite the agency to "think of the prestige!" when agreeing to do some heroic work for a limited budget, but it's rarely something that can be included in a contract. That said, while it's disappointing for them, I can't see the moral issue here. If someone contracted me to write some software for them, and then they decided that they liked my implementation in Python but wanted to use a Java port in production, I don't think I'd have any grounds for complaint on moral or ethical grounds. I'd still have the money, and I'd still be able to tell people that I did work for that client, on that particular project (assuming there's no contractual bar to this).
  - sbarre 14y ago
    The moral issue would come from you having been convinced to do the Python version for cheap, based on some future promise of work/fame/recognition, and then having those future promises reneged on.. You're right, there is nothing illegal about it (and welcome to the world of contracting!), but it's still a bit shitty. That's why I believe in "work for free, or work for full price, but never work for cheap."
ceworthington 14y ago
As a product designer who occasionally does contract work for larger companies, I fail to see what the big deal is. My work is often used by my clients to inform a bigger, more expensive design that they build internally or outsource elsewhere. They hired me, they own the work, therefore they can do what they would like with it.
- regularfry 14y ago
  > they own the work Depending on the contract. If there's no explicit copyright transfer, chances are that they don't.
dabeeeenster 14y ago
It's just a case of what they had signed. If Asylum assigned over the rights of the work to LB, they have nothing to complain about...
grabeh 14y ago
It sounds from Leo Randall's blog that they took an assignment of Asylum Film's film and if this is the case, they were free to do whatever they wanted with it, including making derivative works or works substantially reproducing it. Still, if I was Asylum, I would have definitely thought more about retaining some right of first refusal or right to tender if LR were to subsequently decide to reshoot. Obviously hindsight is a beautiful thing though, and perhaps LR didn't want to be constrained in this way.
- colmvp 14y ago
  "I would have definitely thought more about retaining some right of first refusal or right to tender if LB were to subsequently decide to reshoot." I don't see why they should feel entitled to this. They got paid for their work. It'd be like a startup paying me to do their front-end, them getting funded, and then them opting to take some of the work I did and expanding upon it with perhaps a bigger and more professional team.
  - grabeh 14y ago
    I am suggesting that a right of first refusal etc was incorporated into any agreement with LR as a result of negotiation rather than that they felt entitled to it. Clearly if they were retained to perform services with a specific scope which they subsequently complied with and got paid for, they should not be complaining that the client then did not use their work subsequently. This again assumes their was some form of assignment in place.
- objclxt 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure any request for right of first refusal would just be shot straight down. Bear in mind ultimately LB doesn't own the work: their client does. LB is one link in a big long outsourcing chain, which is basically how most advertising for large corporations works. You have one big agency at the top, which farms out work to smaller agencies, etc etc.
  - grabeh 14y ago
ed209 14y ago
For what it's worth, I find the Asylum version is much nicer, has more character and emotion than the "high production quality" version.
electic 14y ago
AF was the contractor, they produced work, they got paid to deliver product to LB. LB didn't like it and paid more to get the concept redone. Sounds fair to me. Welcome to life.
columbo 14y ago
As I read it LB contracted a company to build him a device. Then LB took the device home, liked it and had another company copy that device. LB owns the device, the copyright, the IP, the idea, the script, the everything. LB can do _whatever_ he wanted with the device. It doesn't matter of LB had the idea or not. It doesn't matter if he directed or gave them a script, advice or consultation. LB asked for complete ownership of a product and he received one. All that is left is a moral argument. Should LB have recast the movie exactly as it was created by the other company? Well shoot. I don't know. What about when a company changes its logo, should it be a ground up change to respect the previous creator or should it be a slight tweak to the existing creation? I do believe that this is a great example of why you don't want to air your dirty laundry on the net. People are going to make decisions, choose sides, and you can't guarantee that it will land in your favor.
- objclxt 14y ago
  I'm a little surprised Asylum are moaning about this, because their site suggests they've been around for a few years working in the ad world, and this kind of thing happens all the time. That said, I refuse to believe LB when they say they didn't show the other production houses Asylum's original piece - it would be very unusual in advertising not to. Right or wrong, Asylum aren't doing themselves any favours...the ad world in London is very insular, more so than the start-up world. Everybody knows everybody, and reputation is really everything (I work on the outskirts of it, so I speak from some experience).

64 points by kristianc 14y ago

Leo Burnett response here http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ http://blog.leoburnett.co.uk/our-views/rmhc-gate/ TL;DR - Original concept and script were supposedly Leo Burnett's.

modoc 14y ago
However the Asylum Films complaint isn't around the concept or script being copied/stolen. They complain that the company that re-shot the higher budget version essentially copied/stole much of their creative work: lighting, shots, etc...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- davedx 14y ago
  But surely when you do work for a client, they own the IP, not you? If I was a logo designer and designed a logo for BigCorp, then they wanted to revise it a year later to something similar but different, would I be justified in complaining they 'stole and copied my creative work'?
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    They own the finished product, but honestly it's really frowned upon to a do a bigger budget version and lift lighting and shooting setups (or at least in photography, I'd imagine videography runs on the same rails).
  - evoxed 14y ago
    It's all supposed to be in the contract. If it's not, then the most likely court scenario is that the IP is owned by the client, creator would have rights to display it, but their work would be considered a service.
  - regularfry 14y ago
    That depends entirely on the specific contract and the jurisdiction. There's no automatic assumption of copyright transfer in the UK, what you have is an implied license to use (normally). It's quite possible you would be justified, although I'd take issue with the word "stole".
barrkel 14y ago
That may be the case, but I'd put "concept + script" in the same bucket as "high-level spec" - in other words, not really believable when the end results look like direct clones. If Leo Burnett had said they did storyboards, set design etc., it would be more convincing.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

andyjohnson0 14y ago

This seems wrong to me, and I hope it gets resolved. But why is this on HN and near the top of the main page? Definitely off topic.

phaylon 14y ago
Because it interests people, so they vote it up?
eevilspock 14y ago
Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  Thanks for correcting me. I wrongly thought that flagging was for genuine spam.
kristianc 14y ago
On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  I'm aware of that guideline. How does a minor dispute between two companies gratify one's intellectual curiosity?
  - nicholassmith 14y ago
    Well we get a lot of posts about copyright, client work and so on so it does seem to fit.

colmvp 14y ago

Having read both sides of the story, I don't understand why Asylum is butthurt about this. They got paid by Leo Burnett to do a scene which both parties collaborated. However, as part of the contract and as the client to Asylum, Leo Burnett probably owns the creative so they are free to do whatever they want afterwards. It's not unlike a startup asking a designer to visually revamp their entire site: the designer may have come up with the creative but the client technically owns it. Afterwards, Leo Burnett's client (McDonalds) decided that they liked it so much they wanted a reshoot with higher production quality, so LB opted to reshoot it with a more expensive production company.

rjknight 14y ago
I think it's because Asylum were told (or assumed) that the prestige of the client would be available to them once the work has been released. Asylum would be able to take credit for the work by featuring it in their portfolio. Now they're just the guys who shot the "prototype" rather than the real thing. In creative work it's common for the commissioner to invite the agency to "think of the prestige!" when agreeing to do some heroic work for a limited budget, but it's rarely something that can be included in a contract. That said, while it's disappointing for them, I can't see the moral issue here. If someone contracted me to write some software for them, and then they decided that they liked my implementation in Python but wanted to use a Java port in production, I don't think I'd have any grounds for complaint on moral or ethical grounds. I'd still have the money, and I'd still be able to tell people that I did work for that client, on that particular project (assuming there's no contractual bar to this).
- sbarre 14y ago
  The moral issue would come from you having been convinced to do the Python version for cheap, based on some future promise of work/fame/recognition, and then having those future promises reneged on.. You're right, there is nothing illegal about it (and welcome to the world of contracting!), but it's still a bit shitty. That's why I believe in "work for free, or work for full price, but never work for cheap."

ceworthington 14y ago

As a product designer who occasionally does contract work for larger companies, I fail to see what the big deal is. My work is often used by my clients to inform a bigger, more expensive design that they build internally or outsource elsewhere. They hired me, they own the work, therefore they can do what they would like with it.

regularfry 14y ago
> they own the work Depending on the contract. If there's no explicit copyright transfer, chances are that they don't.

dabeeeenster 14y ago

It's just a case of what they had signed. If Asylum assigned over the rights of the work to LB, they have nothing to complain about...

grabeh 14y ago

It sounds from Leo Randall's blog that they took an assignment of Asylum Film's film and if this is the case, they were free to do whatever they wanted with it, including making derivative works or works substantially reproducing it. Still, if I was Asylum, I would have definitely thought more about retaining some right of first refusal or right to tender if LR were to subsequently decide to reshoot. Obviously hindsight is a beautiful thing though, and perhaps LR didn't want to be constrained in this way.

colmvp 14y ago
"I would have definitely thought more about retaining some right of first refusal or right to tender if LB were to subsequently decide to reshoot." I don't see why they should feel entitled to this. They got paid for their work. It'd be like a startup paying me to do their front-end, them getting funded, and then them opting to take some of the work I did and expanding upon it with perhaps a bigger and more professional team.
- grabeh 14y ago
  I am suggesting that a right of first refusal etc was incorporated into any agreement with LR as a result of negotiation rather than that they felt entitled to it. Clearly if they were retained to perform services with a specific scope which they subsequently complied with and got paid for, they should not be complaining that the client then did not use their work subsequently. This again assumes their was some form of assignment in place.
objclxt 14y ago
I'm pretty sure any request for right of first refusal would just be shot straight down. Bear in mind ultimately LB doesn't own the work: their client does. LB is one link in a big long outsourcing chain, which is basically how most advertising for large corporations works. You have one big agency at the top, which farms out work to smaller agencies, etc etc.
- grabeh 14y ago

ed209 14y ago

For what it's worth, I find the Asylum version is much nicer, has more character and emotion than the "high production quality" version.

electic 14y ago

AF was the contractor, they produced work, they got paid to deliver product to LB. LB didn't like it and paid more to get the concept redone. Sounds fair to me. Welcome to life.

columbo 14y ago

As I read it LB contracted a company to build him a device. Then LB took the device home, liked it and had another company copy that device. LB owns the device, the copyright, the IP, the idea, the script, the everything. LB can do _whatever_ he wanted with the device. It doesn't matter of LB had the idea or not. It doesn't matter if he directed or gave them a script, advice or consultation. LB asked for complete ownership of a product and he received one. All that is left is a moral argument. Should LB have recast the movie exactly as it was created by the other company? Well shoot. I don't know. What about when a company changes its logo, should it be a ground up change to respect the previous creator or should it be a slight tweak to the existing creation? I do believe that this is a great example of why you don't want to air your dirty laundry on the net. People are going to make decisions, choose sides, and you can't guarantee that it will land in your favor.

objclxt 14y ago
I'm a little surprised Asylum are moaning about this, because their site suggests they've been around for a few years working in the ad world, and this kind of thing happens all the time. That said, I refuse to believe LB when they say they didn't show the other production houses Asylum's original piece - it would be very unusual in advertising not to. Right or wrong, Asylum aren't doing themselves any favours...the ad world in London is very insular, more so than the start-up world. Everybody knows everybody, and reputation is really everything (I work on the outskirts of it, so I speak from some experience).